Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
No look its not the courts that are to blame, its the freaking judges! Some of them are totally out of whack. I have never had a problem with the judiciary being an independant co-equal branch of government, its the damn Congress i hate. This guy's ruling (in this instance) was a huge overstep on his mark, he was way out of line. Anyway why do you like judges, you're an attorney! 
Not every idea is a bad one no, this one however is preposterous.
That idea never works with me, government always legislates to ban things, you'll always be in favor of banning things and you'll never be in favor of banning nothing will you? As for fixing bridges and potholes, good lord no! Congress just passed a near 300 billion dollar highway bill last year and yet a bridge collapses! How much of that money was pork? Its better when Congress does sit around legislating things that don't cost money, its CHEAPER!
So the traditional factor doesn't sway you? Nor the slippery slope argument nor the financial factor? Good of sciety/children raised by mom and dad? Good, because it shouldn't have to. Government reserves the right to regulate what it gives privellages on,marriage is not a god given right in most people's books otherwise there would be no restrictions at all.
It may not be a strong constitutional reason for ou but it is for a lot of others. |
I don't know if the judge in Iowa is a whack. I know gratuitously saying he is one when he makes a ruling under his state law and its constitution is spurious without examination of his opinion, case law, and state constitution. Moreover, it's the total right of state courts to interpret their own state constitution. That was something that really peeved me about people bashing the Massachusetts court from other states, especially when they wanted their own state efforts to deny it recognised.
On banning, it depends on what is being banned and why.
On the infrastructure, government needs a role in it so it gets done safe and orderly. Privatisation is not a self-evident better option. To the contrary, it often leads to cronyism, pork, and spending more to get less due to conflicts of interest between the public necessities and maximising profit.
On gay marriage, tradition does not seem anything but a circular argument. Traditions are popular personal preferences but mandating others follow them is a different matter. Thanksgiving dinner is a tradition but should it be legally mandated? Not in my view. I see no slippery slope with gay marriages either. In fact, to me there is a social benefit on encouraging such unions just as with straight marriages because monogamous relationships bonded with legal affirmation aids personal happiness and reducing promiscuity that spreads diseases and helps stem serial and broken relationships. It also would reduce pressures on gays to hide their identity in straight marriages due to peer pressures that eventually unravel because 'fake it until you make it' fails just as it did for former Governor McGreevey and Senator Craig, at great cost to them and others, especially the defrauded spouses and any children they might have. I do not see the economic negatives you see, none that would be fair to keep for onesself at the expense of others anyway. Marriage as a concept is also not a privilege but has been long recognised as a fundamental right.
Gay adoptive parents have not been shown to be inferior either. How does a decent gay couple prove to be automatically worse than the heterosexual couple that had them and could not care for them? Similarly, how had gay marriage played any role in the high divorce rate and poor parenting of straight couples? It must come with great guffaws to gays to hear lectures about their superior status when straights have plenty of their own failings for which to be personally accountable. Most certainly their own relationships do not make straight ones fail. The government also cannot constitutionally mandate that people have children or that they have children as a prerequisite to getting married. Indeed, people often get married knowing they cannot or will not have them.